Influence of protected organic acids on growth performance, fecal microbial composition, gas emission, and apparent total tract digestibility in growing pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to assess the effect of protected organic acids on growth performance, fecal microbial composition, gas emission, and apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) in growing pigs. A total of 80 crossbred (Landrace × Yorkshire) × Duroc) growing pigs with average initial body weight (BW) of 22.66 ± 2.45 kg were allotted to one of two dietary treatments with 8 replications and 5 pigs (3 gilts and 2 barrows) per pen in a randomized complete block design in a 6-week study with basal diets (CON) and basal diets + 0.2% microencapsulated organic acids (MOA). A trend and significant effect on average daily gain (ADG) were observed during weeks 2 and 6 ( P < 0.05), respectively. The gain–feed ratio (G:F) was increased ( P = 0.0032) in the MOA group. ADG ( P = 0.0109) and trend in G:F ( P = 0.1010) were observed in the MOA group. However, no difference was observed in the BW and average daily feed intake of pigs. Fecal Escherichia coli counts showed reduction ( P = 0.0143) at week 4. MOA supplementation had no influence on ATTD and fecal gas emission in growing pigs during the entire experiment ( P > 0.05). The MOA supplementation to the basal diet had a positive effect on the growth performance and fecal microbial composition of growing pigs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".